InfoWorld Home / Windows / Enterprise Desktop / Linux slips into Microsoft's warm, deadly embrace
July 20, 2009

Linux slips into Microsoft's warm, deadly embrace

How Microsoft will use the GPL to mount a serious backdoor assault on the core of the Linux platform

| Print | 17 comments|
799 Recommendations

Embrace and extend: That has been Microsoft's competitive mantra for as long as I can remember. So it comes as no real surprise to me that the company would choose to release, via the GPL, device driver code that more closely integrates Linux into the Microsoft virtualization ecosystem. After all, it's not like Linux will be running the show in this relationship. Rather, it's making the FOSS (free open source software) community's fair-haired boy feel more comfortable as it settles into the warm, fatal embrace of Hyper-V that is the Redmond giant's ultimate goal.

Make no mistake: This is a hostile action on Microsoft's part. Its stated mission is to squash Linux like a bug, and the easiest way to do that is to feign friendship -- to offer a bogus olive branch, then switch it out at the last minute for a nasty bundle of thorns.

[ InfoWorld's Galen Gruman suggests why businesses should adopt desktop Linux instead of Windows. | And Neil McAllister asks if desktop Linux missed its chance ]

Don’t believe me? Ask IBM. As a consultant to the Software Solutions (SWS) group in the mid 90’s, I saw firsthand how Microsoft embraced IBM’s legacy architecture – through SNA Server and similar integration plays – and then swallowed the company’s mid-range business whole through a well crafted commodity power play.

Or talk to Novell. The onetime networking leader sat helpless as Microsoft embraced the IPX protocol, giving it equal time with its own NetBEUI (and thus neutralizing protocol choice as a factor) while quietly shifting its core development to the more level playing field that was TCP/IP.

Now, it's the FOSS community's turn in the Microsoft death grip. Watch as the Redmondians wax poetic about "co-opetition" and how they need to acknowledge customer demand for Linux-based solutions. Meanwhile, their real play is to gain control over the FOSS platform's implementation by obviating the need for non-Microsoft tools and frameworks. Then, when they've eliminated the last vestiges of Linux's pre-embrace existence, they'll slowly squeeze the life out of their now hapless victim by shortchanging it in new Microsoft platform releases and generally making the FOSS solution cost-ineffective.

Related Content...

White Paper

D2D Virtual Tape Library Replication Primer

This whitepaper explains the terminology and concepts behind Data Replication technologies and establishes some sizing rules through worked examples. Learn the new paradigm in disaster tolerance—protect data anywhere.

Download now »

White Paper

An Alternative to Virtualization for Datacenter Cost Savings

Server virtualization is a popular option for dealing with mounting datacenter costs. Another equally promising approach is the use of an Application Delivery Controller. Citrix NetScaler provides a low-cost way for organizations to reduce their server count and accrue cost savings from a reduction in space, cooling, power and personnel.

Download now »

White Paper

Why Your Firewall, VPN, and IEEE 802.11i Aren't Enough to Protect Your Network

The emergence of WLANs has created a new breed of security threats to enterprise networks.

Included in HP ProCurve WLAN solutions is security technology that alleviates threats from WLANs through:
* Monitoring wireless activity inside and out of the enterprise
* Classifying WLAN transmissions into harmful and harmless
* Preventing transmissions that pose a security threat to the enterprise network
* Locating participating devices for physical remediation

Download now »

White Paper

Bringing the Edge to the Data Center

Effectively address data protection challenges, implementing solutions that help store and protect business–critical data while cutting costs and improving efficiency and reliability.

Download now »
17 of 17 comments
Sign In or Register to comment
volome 21-Jul-09 12:18am
1 reply

Randall
You are so right, I can't agree more!
What is Microsofts stock Symbol again MSFT?
Volome

raargh 21-Jul-09 4:09pm
ummm... sadly, linux on the desktop is already dying. But, when it comes to servers, *nix is already winning. The only really interesting thing on the horizon is Chrome OS. It might appeal to the Children enough to worry MS.
bobburns 21-Jul-09 12:21am
1 reply
And Kennedy is right!! I once worked at Microsoft, and I can tell you first hand they have been "embracing and extending" on free GPL code for quite some time with all kinds of code converters. People who program for free on beer and pizza to show they can do it, play right into the hands of any business of corporate America and are one of the biggest jokes going at Microsoft, and rightly so. However those who came up with the GPL thought it was a good idea was about as good an idea as staking out a claim to mine gold and not registering the claim and staying there to protect it. I have been in this business 23 years, and it is just that Gates was smart enough to recognize at an early age that playing on that "prove it to me" challenge could build him a rather large and secure company . . . and it did. It will now build the next and new and greater version of Microsoft - it's working for Apple with the MAC OS after all now isn't it?
cmaurand 22-Jul-09 9:39am
Not to mention all the GPL code that underpins active directory services, DNS, etc.
FlutterVertigo 21-Jul-09 2:23am
2 replies
There's a bit of a problem with GPL. You can add, delete, modify, etc. But if you sell the software to someone, the source you've written must accompany it. Microsoft isn't the type of company which will do this. It has nothing to do with the fact the code might have originated on Linux and they ported it to Windows. Microsoft will try to find a way around this, but until they do...
jeffq 21-Jul-09 3:39pm
Microsoft certainly has demonstrated the nerve it would take to try to "get around" the GPL a couple of years down the road, forcing someone (with huge pockets and endless resolve) to sue them for violating its terms. But they don't need to do that. What I expect to see is that Hyper-V for Windows 8 will "improve" on the existing technology by adding a few patented techniques. plus a migration tool that requires knowledge of those techniques. I'd be surprised if they didn't already have a small development group planning this, possibly clean-room style, in parallel with the GPL'd code. They would probably have wanted beforehand to identify the patentable technology that will allow them to make the next version inadequately compatible with the free code. (No, I don't have a tinfoil hat -- why do you ask?) Anyone who tries to port the GPL'd code to work with the new Hyper-V will face the same problems all Microsoft competitors eventually do:
  1. Microsoft won't release all the necessary information for full interoperability.
  2. Even if porters figured out how to update the GPL'd code, they'd be somehow be violating the new patents (completely unconnected to the GPL'd code itself). Or at least Microsoft will be able to make a serious enough argument to create the needed FUD.
  3. Third-party licensees of the new patents will pay a license fee that will start out reasonable, but will increase in direct proportion to the loss of Hyper-V competitors' market share, so that Microsoft can eliminate (or at least render insignificant) that competition.
This temporary cooperation with Linux neatly undercuts IT arguments for open source. CxOs, many of whom fear what they see as the uncertain nature of open source, will believe they can have the best of both worlds -- until Microsoft's business planners calculate they can afford to force the proprietary upgrade without losing significant customers. Seems like Redmond may have finally hit on the way to neutralize Linux. The truly sad thing is that we can see it coming, but we'll still follow along like the sheep we are.
bobburns 21-Jul-09 4:38pm
1 reply
They already have figured out how to defeat the GPL - they re-write it enough to obliterate the original code, and since the GPL has not got enough money to sue them - and would not win if they did - the GPL is but a meaningless way to give code away. You'll never know it was originally what ever it was.
jeffq 21-Jul-09 7:53pm

bobburns, I'm afraid you're making two errors above. (Please note that the arguments below are my lay opinion -- I am not a lawyer.)

First, "GPL" is not a company, it's a legal contract. A person or company would have to do the suing.

Second, I believe GPLv2 has two clauses that would prevent Microsoft from using their own free Linux drivers for a proprietary new version. Section 2 forbids anyone using GPLv2-released code from modifying it and then NOT releasing it under the same, free-of-charge terms in this license. Section 7 says that if any GPLv2-licensed code includes non-free parts, the GPL'd code cannot be distributed -- period. (In other words, if you use GPLv2 for some code, you either distribute it legally for free, or not at all at any price. Richard Stallman calls this the "Liberty or Death" clause.)

I'm supposing that if Ballmer & co. don't use both a clean-room development of replacement drivers and a patented technology that no one could replicate without a license, then open-sourcers could modify the old code to make it work with this hypothetical new Hyper-V. If Microsoft tries to modify the old code to create new proprietary drivers, then they would make their own code illegal under Sections 2 and 7 unless it's also free-as-in-beer.

Rather than someone suing Microsoft, what might happen would be that anyone who could get their hands on the actual new source code could then freely implement the new drivers (since it must also be GPLv2-licensed). No license would be needed, no matter what the source code or Microsoft says. (Of course, I wouldn't want to be the one trying that without a big-pockets company to pay the lawyers to argue the case.) If Microsoft creates an entirely new, clean-room version, the FOSS community could modify the old code to catch up to it. But if the 'Softies throw in some new, patented software technology with a restricted license, open-sourcers could not legally create a functional equivalent without a (likely expensive) license from Microsoft. Again, I'm no lawyer, but that's the path I see for Microsoft to do their usual embrace, extend, and extinguish.

Elfish 21-Jul-09 5:29am
1 reply
The next thing you know, Linux users will be scrambling to deal with viruses and such.
bobburns 21-Jul-09 4:41pm
Linux is irrelevant. They will build a new version of Windows just like - and completely compatible with, the MAC OS. Duh . . .
RamboTribble 21-Jul-09 8:23am
Good call, Mr. Kennedy. And just think how much BillG and company can rake in if they manipulate Open Source developers into producing code for them. Indeed, if MS buys CodeWeavers, moves Windows to a Linux kernel and makes a proprietary compatibility layer, why, they can terminate most of the jobs they haven't already sent to India.
ZayasE 21-Jul-09 9:43am
There's an old saying, Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.
Poobear 21-Jul-09 11:38am
Oh, feh.
EVVJSK 21-Jul-09 11:49am
1 reply

I am going to leave the World Domination theory along and just point out the following:
1. Making Linux work better under Hyper-V theoretically hurts VMWare more than Linux. If VMWare runs Linux MUCH better than Hyper-V, Microsoft does gain market share on VMWare.
2. The reason that Microsoft bested Novell (and I was doing Novell back in the 2.x and 3.x days) was that the NT File Server (which wasn't as good of a File Server as Novell) was a MUCH better application server (just ask anyone who has tried to develop a CPU intensive NLM program). Also, Novell tried ?nix back in the day, remember they were in bed with Unix at one time. They just didn't push that and also were trying the antithesis of the Open Source model with ?nix, and that did work (just ask SCO).
3. IBM's problem with midrange was that their hardware is way to expensive (even Apple has figured that one out). When everything costs twice as much, the cheaper stuff, as long as it is decent will win out. AS/400 and IBM Unix will always be a niche market, but never high volume.
I don't disagree that Linux should be a little wary about Microsoft, but Linux will succeed or fail based on it's own merits (and most likely only if they can control the fragmentation and the lack of a good common application packaging and distribution model) such as ease of use.
Microsoft providing drivers that makes Linux run better on Hyper-V is the very LEAST of Linux's things to worry about.

bobburns 21-Jul-09 5:08pm
1 reply
Microsoft owns such a large in vestment in Vmware, they had might as well own Vmware. Do not forget - the major Vmware owners - and founders - were original VxEtreme people who are good buddies with Microsoft and sold the VxEtreme company to them once before. Novell was not in "bed" with UNIX - they OWNED UNIX at one time, but had no developers for it, and the open source community was not interested and neither was Novell in employing the open source community - things were not that desperate then. Then they sold it to SCO. Then SCO dropped it and and sold the name "UNIX" tradename to the Open Group consortium, and the UNIX code from as originally from AT&T and improved slightly by Novell stayed with SCO - but in reality it just disappears as it was once maintained by Ma Bell, and it became basically all open source. Apple enlisted the open source community to develop BSD UNIX and make the MAC OSX, and hence Microsoft will do the same thing and use the UNIX like kernel and the open source of Wine to make a new Windows out of it - which will also coincidentally run MAC apps too if compiled for the kernel that Microsoft chooses to stage it around. another Apple and Microsoft lawsuit will ensue, and Apple will loose again. Wake up people. Open source has shot itself in the foot - it is meaningless in the world of law - the GPL is a meaningless license in a court of law, and the Apple v Microsoft trial proved that and why years ago. Does anyone here REALLY believe Microsoft is the least bit concerned about the GPL? This is an operation that wrote the book on how to legally reverse engineer and re-package by copyright free and loosely protected code. They wrote the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - with the Lawyers of Bill's Daddy's firm of Preston, Gates, Ellis, Rovelleas and Mead, - which actualy protected and built Microsoft as a company by providing William Nuekom fesh out of law school ( http://www.abanet.org/media/neukombio.html ) to Bill when he was just a boy to keep the company on the right track; and got it made into Federal law. The GPL is but a pass of bad gas from their a__s. As Kennedy above said in a polite way - it is done, over with, finished, and done deal of death. Really - the Nieve natures of these posts is WHY Microsoft will get this done. They have the new company - Wmware to do it - they have hungry code burners out there which will sell out for the right amount of money and stop the "open sore" fight of being broke and they have the Microsoft and marketing savvy and OEM customer base and name to make it work commercially. Then they will own the Internet and every ISP that runs on Linux just like they have been trying unsuccessfully to do with Windows. Wake up people - it is over.
drakaan 27-Jul-09 6:45am
I agree with you about MS and VMWare...they're more likely fighting Novell and it's Xen virtualization toolset (based on the open-source linux KVM code). SCO doesn't own UNIX (Novell didn't sell it to them, it did a deal with them to collect royalties from licenses for them). Apple didn't enlist anyone to make BSD. BSD has been around basically forever, and Apple decided it would make sense to build a pretty windowing and application stack on top of some stable OS code. MS would never use Linux + Wine as a "new version" of Windows. Losing developmental control of the core of their software just doesn't sound like something that would appeal to them as a company. I might be wrong, but it just sounds too devoid of thinking like a traditional software company. The GPL has already been upheld (Wallace V. FSF) in a court of law. Not sure why one license is any more meaningful than another, as far as the law is concerned...what does the "Apple v. Microsoft" trial (which was about look-and-feel, and not copyrighted code) have to do with it? Is Microsoft worried about the GPL? Ever heard of Google's code project? Sourceforge? Wonder why Microsoft's CodePlex came around and why MS has OSI-approved licenses today? I'd say they're a bit concerned. Yes, long ago, CP/M got creatively turned into DOS...today , that wouldn't happen (they'd get their pants sued off). The GPL exists because small companies who would like community involvement in developing their software (Coolite, for example), don't want people to be able to steal it or use it without attribution, etc. If you can get companies using Linux today to actually *choose* HyperV as their virtualization solution, then maybe you've got something. Most companies that are already using Linux are just going to go with Xen or vanilla KVM...why wouldn't you use virtualization software built on the same core as your OS, right? Oh, and you can virtualize windows with Xen and maybe replace *that* with Linux some day... In my mind (and I'm a .NET developer), Microsoft's best chance to win hearts and minds is with the .NET framework and associated development tools. I've used other toolkits, but Visual Studio is the most polished one out there today. Virtualization? Nah...not Hyper-V, anyway. Operating System? It's a wash...I can get eye candy and snazzy desktop effects with Ubuntu for a price of zero dollars. Is it over? Not by a long shot.
MOGH 27-Jul-09 7:36am
Microsoft continues to fail, with bad OSes (Vista) and in it's market control of the fighting over it's own flood of OSes there. "linux on the desktop is already dying", if you only go by retail sales numbers of OEMs !, though there is no argument to make against, that the use of "Linux on the desktop" is far larger (unknown)then retail numbers will have you believe they are !. Imo, Microsoft counts boxes on a retail shelf, as sales, what moves from MS warehouse(s) is somehow sold and counted. Linux is downloaded/sold too and offered on hardware that some well know retailers never have in their sunday paper ads. Duh, the kernel !, Microsoft can offer but taking such offers will at this date will be looked over with care, the target is the Linux kernel (remember SCO) thats not news, Microsoft losses are news !. Linux is a success story, why would the "king of the hill" play along at all ?, offer code to "opensource" ?, come on !, the win is for Linux and bigger Linux players are winning, profits for "Big Blue" are very good and note that 500+ software offerings from "Big Blue" run on Linux today !. Server and the countless users of Linux outside retail are making it hard for anyone to play "king of the hill".

Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts

Subscribe to the Today's Headlines: First Look Newsletter

Find out what will be news for the day, with our first-thing-in-the-morning briefing.

©1994-2009 Infoworld, Inc.